Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Future Pathways

Transcription

1 Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Future Pathways

2 Executive Summary Introduction Successive UK Governments have declared secure, low carbon, affordable energy as a long term objective. Various legislative instruments and mechanisms have been put in place over the last decade to facilitate delivery of this objective, including the Climate Change Act (2008) and, more recently, Electricity Market Reform (2011 White Paper). There will be many challenges associated with the potential future deployment of nuclear energy in the UK s energy mix on a long-term timescale. Studies carried out over the last decade, both within Government and the Learned Societies, include consideration of futures with a nuclear contribution to electricity generation capacity of up to 75 gigawatts (GW) by around the middle of the 21 st century; they also include scenarios with much lower contributions from nuclear energy. The potential growth of the nuclear sector in the UK will not be driven by technology alone. A complex mix of Government policy, relative cost of nuclear power, market decisions and public opinion will influence the rate and direction of growth in the decades to come. It is this level of unpredictability that obliges Government to keep a wide range of technological options open for the future and therefore to maintain an agile and flexible Research and Development (R&D) capability. The aim of carrying out nuclear R&D programmes is to ensure that the UK is able to make informed decisions on future nuclear options. This includes having the capability and capacity to expand or contract the contribution of nuclear energy if required, realise industrial benefits, develop and exploit intellectual property (IP) internationally, and be seen as a credible international partner, which may include hosting international facilities. Approach This UK Nuclear Energy R&D Roadmap (the Roadmap ) sets out the research outcomes which would support implementation of future technology pathways. Detailed illustrative timelines have been developed as examples of these pathways. Actual pathways will be based on an integrated combination of baseline, open fuel cycle and/or closed fuel cycle pathways. All projected dates on the timelines should be treated as indicative. These three pathways are described below followed by the figure which summarises the nuclear energy technology pathway options. 2

3 Baseline Pathway The Baseline Pathway involves operating the existing reactor fleet for the remainder of its life, the justification of lifetime extensions (where appropriate), the decommissioning and clean-up of all of the civil nuclear licensed sites in the UK and the implementation of geological disposal of higher activity radioactive wastes. A significant programme of R&D will be required to deliver this pathway. The accountabilities for completing the decommissioning, clean-up and geological disposal programmes are already clear, but the associated research programmes will be challenging to complete. The Baseline Pathway represents the current status quo, and excludes delivery of the current plans for 16 GW of new nuclear build capacity by The delivery of the current fusion R&D programme is present in the Baseline Pathway. Open Fuel Cycle Pathway An open fuel cycle is one in which fuel is fabricated, loaded into a reactor to generate power and subsequently stored, possibly for many decades, pending geological disposal. A proportion of the fissile material remains in the spent fuel at the point of discharge from the reactor. An open fuel cycle has a relatively high demand for fresh supplies of fissile material. This pathway includes delivery of the current plans for 16 GW of new nuclear build capacity by In practice the bounding case for this pathway involves the construction of a series of reactor units with a combined installed capacity of up to 75 GW by the middle of the 21 st century. This pathway includes the elements of the Baseline Pathway. (Transition to) Closed Fuel Cycle Pathway In a closed fuel cycle the spent nuclear fuel is treated to recover and recycle fissile material which has potential to generate further power. In some fuel cycles, options also exist to incorporate some of the long lived actinides into fuel, thus reducing the disposal challenge. Closing the fuel cycle beyond the middle of the 21 st century reduces the requirement for fresh fissile material. The transition to a closed fuel cycle would not be immediate and would need to be phased in accordance with the development of advanced technologies e.g. fast reactors and advanced reprocessing methods. This pathway includes delivery of the current plans for 16 GW of new nuclear build capacity on an open fuel cycle basis by In practice the bounding case for this pathway involves the construction of a series of reactor units with a combined installed capacity of up to 75 GW by the middle of the 21 st century. This pathway includes the elements of the Baseline Pathway. 3

4 Nuclear Energy Technology Pathway Options KEY: AGR ITER LWR MOX SMP SMR Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project Light Water Reactor Mixed Oxide Fuel Sellafield MOX Plant Small Modular Reactor 4

5 Questions Decisions on nuclear policy in the near future range from broad policy decisions to specific choices of technologies. These will include, but will not be limited to: Should there be an increasing level of power generation from nuclear fission? Should an open fuel cycle be adopted, or would a closed fuel cycle be more appropriate? What should the mix of power generation from thermal power reactors and fast reactors be? Does a thorium fuel cycle offer strategic benefits to the UK? How and when could nuclear fusion technology be commercially deployed? Actions Evidence needs to be produced before decisions on future technologies (e.g. open vs. closed fuel cycles) can be made on an informed basis, and at the appropriate time, to ensure that nuclear energy pathway options are not inadvertently foreclosed. This Roadmap sets out the R&D programmes necessary to provide the required evidence base. Coordination of these R&D programmes will require the UK to take measures such as: Strengthening facilities required to undertake R&D programmes on radioactive systems; Maintaining and developing the high-level skills base across these areas; and Collaborating internationally to leverage funding, influence international developments and capture IP for exploitation. This Roadmap identifies near-term actions to enable informed technology choices, and to maintain the capability to deliver specific technology options. The most immediate actions are detailed below. These should be undertaken before the end of 2014 to meet specific needs and avoid missed opportunities. Coordination Need or Opportunity The development of an integrated national nuclear energy R&D programme that provides evidence to inform future strategic decisions and technical capability needs to be guided by a new UK nuclear energy R&D coordinating mechanism. One of the first tasks for this mechanism should be to determine the detailed methodology by which the national R&D programme will be developed, building on the high level considerations presented in this Roadmap. 5

6 Enabling Actions Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Future Pathways 1. Establish a new UK nuclear energy R&D coordinating mechanism; and 2. Implement a start-up project for the new national nuclear energy R&D programmes. National R&D Capability: Organisational Infrastructure Need or Opportunity Nuclear research requires specialist facilities and expertise to support work with radioactive and nuclear materials, and with ionising radiation. The UK already has significant capability to support such research but it is fragmented and not well focused on the needs of UK business. The research facilities required to develop knowledge, promote innovation, build skills and deliver positive business impact from both fission and fusion research programmes need to enable research with both non-radioactive and radioactive samples from the laboratory, through pilot programmes, to the industrial scale. The translation of research through development to deployment requires an integrated capability that connects together universities, national laboratories, and the end-users of nuclear technology. Enabling Actions 1. Develop a longer-term mission for the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), coupled with changes to its remit to ensure responsiveness to the new nuclear strategy; 2. Establish organisational infrastructure (a National Nuclear User Facility (NNUF)) to ensure access to key active research facilities, equipment and materials for the wider nuclear research community; and 3. Continue to support existing initiatives (such as the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC)). National R&D Capability: Skills and Knowledge Need or Opportunity Research programmes are required to maintain the overall nuclear fission skills base, to provide a framework to develop and maintain subject matter expertise and to provide underpinning evidence to support strategic and technical decision making. Enabling Actions 1. Establish an integrating body to oversee a national nuclear R&D skills strategy to be delivered by NNL, academia and the National Skills Academy for Nuclear (NSAN); and 2. Implement a feasibility study to develop an industry-wide Knowledge Management system building on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority s (NDA) Knowledge Hub. 6

7 International Collaboration Need or Opportunity Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Future Pathways International collaboration will be essential to the development of advanced reactors and the associated fuel cycle facilities. Several countries are active in these fields, including the US, France, Japan and South Korea. The UK will need to develop credible national R&D programmes where it wishes to participate in international R&D collaboration. Enabling Actions 1. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office networks to implement the nuclear energy R&D strategy overseas with clear objectives; 2. Increase UK involvement through programme participation in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF); 3. Develop a plan to optimise influence and participation in Euratom R&D programmes, including identification of demonstrator facilities that might be attractive for the UK to host; 4. Continue involvement in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project through R&D contributions to position UK industry for a substantial share of the future fusion economy; and 5. Define clear objectives for bilateral relationships with, for example: a. The US - for Small Modular Reactor (SMR) and advanced fuel cycles opportunities and decommissioning. b. France - for its ASTRID sodium fast reactor and the Jules Horowitz Reactor (JHR) materials test reactor consortium; future fuel cycles, decommissioning and geological disposal. c. South Korea for Generation IV fast reactors and advanced reprocessing; predominantly a business/economic opportunity. d. Saudi Arabia, Malaysia examples of emerging nuclear markets with business opportunities. e. Japan potential links on decommissioning, new build, Generation IV, and advanced fuel cycles. Impact Details of the decisions associated with the above actions, and their impact, are shown in the table below. These decisions fall under the thematic areas: reactor systems, fuel fabrication, and spent fuel recycling. The aim is to generate the information needed to inform strategic decisions on nuclear energy and to ensure that the UK remains capable of implementing the decision outcomes. The research programme will need to be modified in the light of such decisions. 7

8 Impact of decisions ( ) to retain technology options Decision Date Theme Fuel Cycle Assumption Potential Closed Open Consequence (of not making decision) Opportunity UK to resume active participation in the Generation IV International Forum Next Generation Reactors, including Fast Reactor First commercial UK next generation reactor could be operational in Delay in international collaboration leading to delays in eventual implementation. Pursuing next generation reactors without collaboration could have cost implications. Not pursuing fast reactors could constrain future energy options. Collaboration will give influence on international programmes. Opportunity to create and exploit IP. Builds on existing expertise. Hosting a demonstrator could bring revenue into the UK. Extend capability to independently and authoritatively evaluate and regulate additional Gen III / III+ and advanced thermal reactors Thermal Reactors - general Advanced thermal reactors could be deployed in the UK. Greater dependence on vendors / utilities. UK becomes a passive receiver of technology. Ability to leverage industrial sector support. 8

9 Decision Date Theme Fuel Cycle Assumption Potential Closed Open Consequence (of not making decision) Opportunity Join US Dept. of Energy Small Modular Reactor (SMR) programme Thermal Reactors SMRs. UK may wish to deploy SMR as part of the energy mix. UK industry is in a position to join a consortium that is successful in obtaining US Dept. of Energy funding. Not participating in the US programme could increase costs. Failure to join could result in a lost opportunity for UK involvement in deployment. Leverage UK capability to create and exploit IP. Share costs with US. Invest in UK fuel fabrication capability and infrastructure Fuel Fabrication Lead test fuel assemblies would need to be manufactured for all future reactors. Risk of loss of UK capability following Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) closure. Difficult to enact current policy to use plutonium in MOX fuel manufacture. Generate revenue by supplying fuel pins and lead test assemblies to the international market. Create wider opportunities for UK industry. Create revenue by hosting an international demonstration facility. 9

10 Decision Date Theme Fuel Cycle Assumption Potential Closed Open Consequence (of not making decision) Opportunity Invest in spent fuel recycling capability through R&D using EU and national programme Spent Fuel Recycling A technology decision may need to be made in about 10 years time if the UK is to adopt a closed fuel cycle. UK loses leading technical and industrial positions when THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) closes. Reduced ability to host international fuel recycling demonstration facilities. Participation in international collaborations could enable the UK to influence those programmes. Enables UK to host an international demonstration facility to create revenue for the UK. Invest in integration of recycling R&D programme with next generation (including fast) reactors, fuel fabrication and disposal R&D programmes to create a complete fuel cycle capability Spent Fuel Recycling As above. Credibility of next generation (including fast reactor) development programme weakened. A complete capability which could extend the capacity to generate revenue for the UK. Commission laboratories that are able to handle highly active materials. 10

11 R&D Programme Activities Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap: Future Pathways The Roadmap sets out pathways that the UK can follow to maintain fuel cycle and reactor technology options, with a consequent impact on decommissioning, waste management and disposal. R&D programme activities related to these pathways that are needed within the next decade include: Baseline Pathway Operations and Maintenance R&D to support life-cycle management technologies including advanced diagnostics, monitoring, and predictive capability to assess normal and off-normal behaviour including for life-extensions. Waste Management and Decommissioning R&D to support high hazard legacy waste management for the UK s diverse portfolio; facilities and reactor decommissioning. Geological Disposal - the development and regulatory scrutiny of the safety cases and the development of technologies supporting geological disposal are thoroughly underpinned by transparent, robust R&D which develops confidence among all stakeholders including the public. Future Open/Closed Fuel Cycle Pathways New Nuclear Build R&D to support the design and manufacture of reactor components and modules and enable innovation within the UK supply chain. This would include participation in international advanced reactor programmes including SMRs and fast reactors. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Services R&D to support manufacture of inherently safe fuels for Light Water Reactor (LWR) and advanced reactor systems and to support the development of reprocessing technologies. The Roadmap has also identified that, due to the synergies in R&D activities between the main R&D pathways (baseline (including nuclear fusion), future nuclear fission open and closed fuel cycles), a significant nuclear energy R&D programme is required within the UK regardless of the extent of new nuclear build and of the systems and technologies deployed. These synergies are illustrated in the following matrix. 11

12 R&D Programme Synergies 12

13 Contents Executive Summary... 2 Glossary Introduction The Purpose of the Nuclear Energy R&D Roadmap The Policy Background The Role of Nuclear Energy in a Low Carbon Economy Roadmap Development Nuclear Energy R&D Vision Drivers Introduction Nuclear R&D to Support the UK Energy Strategy Nuclear R&D Contribution to UK Economic Growth Strategy Tactical Drivers Nuclear Energy R&D Pathways Baseline Pathway Open Fuel Cycle Pathway (Transition to) Closed Fuel Cycle Pathway Other Fuel Cycles: Thorium Fuel Cycle Modelling Open Fuel Cycles Closed Fuel Cycles Comparison of Open and Closed Fuel Cycles General Observations

14 Observations on a 75 GW Nuclear Programme Pathway Timelines Reading the Timelines Outline Timeline for ASTRID Deployment Illustrative Timeline for Baseline Pathway Illustrative Timeline for Open Fuel Cycle (75 GW) Pathway Illustrative Timeline for Transition from Open to Closed Fuel Cycle (75 GW) Pathway R&D Programmes Introduction Identifying priority R&D needs across programme areas; National R&D Programme Cross-Cutting Capabilities Nuclear Energy R&D Skills Prioritisation, Actions and Metrics R&D Programme Prioritisation Recommended Actions Impact of decisions made in the period Annex A - NRDAB Sub Group Recommendations Relating to Nuclear R&D Annex B - Nuclear Fission Reactor Technology Annex C - Advanced Fuels Annex D - Advanced Fuel Cycles Annex E - Organisations Coordinating UK Nuclear R&D Annex F R&D Programmes Annex G Core Nuclear Fission Science, Engineering and Technology Capabilities and Strategic UK Programme Areas

15 Figures Figure 1: Relationship between Nuclear Energy Strategy ( Strategy ), Nuclear R&D Roadmap ( Roadmap ), and Nuclear R&D Landscape Review ( Review ) Figure 2: Rationale for nuclear energy R&D Figure 3: Comparison of heat output from two generations of reactors delivering 75 GW of power on open and closed fuel cycles Figure 4: Comparison of uranium ore required to power two generations of reactors delivering 75 GW of power on open and closed fuel cycles Figure 5: The source of power generated against time for a 75 GW closed fuel cycle Figure 6: Illustrative timeline for ASTRID deployment in France Figure 7: Illustrative timeline for baseline pathway Figure 8: Illustrative timeline of research areas for baseline pathway Figure 9: Illustrative timeline for open fuel cycle pathway Figure 10: Illustrative timeline of research areas for open fuel cycle pathway Figure 11: Illustrative timeline for transition from open to closed fuel cycle pathway 45 Figure 12: Illustrative timeline of research areas for transition from open to closed fuel cycle pathway Figure 13: Existing and future R&D programmes and accountabilities Figure 14: Present and future coordination of nuclear R&D Figure 15: European roadmap for nuclear technology development

16 Tables Table 1: High level description of the R&D programme areas Table 2: Summary of national R&D programme capability, research output and technology delivered Table 3: High level description of cross-cutting capabilities Table 4: Roadmap priority R&D objectives Table 5: Roadmap recommended actions Table 6: Impact of decisions ( ) to retain technology options Table 7: Overview of the six Generation IV systems

17 Glossary ABWR ACSEPT AGR ASGARD ASTRID CCFE DCF DECC DTI EFDA EPR EPSRC ERP ERU ESNII EU Euratom FR GDF GIF GW HAW HLW HORIZON 2020 ILW ITER JHR LLW Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Actinide recycling by SEParation and Transmutation Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Advanced fuels for Generation IV reactors: Reprocessing and Dissolution Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration Culham Centre for Fusion Energy Dalton Cumbrian Facility Department of Energy and Climate Change Department of Trade and Industry European Fusion Development Agreement An advanced PWR Generation III reactor (European Pressurized Reactor) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Energy Research Partnership Enriched Reprocessed Uranium European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative European Union European Atomic Energy Community Fast Reactor Geological Disposal Facility Generation IV International Forum Gigawatt Higher Activity Waste High Level Waste European Commission Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Intermediate Level Waste International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project Jules Horowitz Reactor Low Level Waste 17

18 LLWR LWR MA MOX NAMRC NDA NMM NNL NNUF NRDAB NSAN Pu PWR R&D RWMD SACSESS SFM SFR SMR THORP TRL U UKTI UOX Low Level Waste Repository Light Water Reactor Minor Actinide Mixed Oxide Fuel Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Nuclear Materials Management National Nuclear Laboratory National Nuclear User Facility Ad Hoc Nuclear Research and Development Advisory Board National Skills Academy for Nuclear Plutonium Pressurised Water Reactor Research and Development Radioactive Waste Management Directorate Safety of ACtinide SEparation processes Spent Fuel Management Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor Small Modular Reactor Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant Technology Readiness Level Uranium UK Trade and Investment Uranium OXide 18

19 1. Introduction The Purpose of the Nuclear Energy R&D Roadmap The Government is committed to delivering a low carbon and affordable energy mix of renewables, new nuclear 1 and clean gas and coal, which will provide reliable low carbon electricity generation and reduce the UK s dependence on fossil fuel imports. Two of the Government s principal aims in its energy policy are to provide energy security and to decarbonise the UK economy to an 80% reduction on 1990 emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, as required by the Climate Change Act (2008) 2. The global nuclear renaissance provides a multi-billion pound opportunity for those industries involved in the supply of goods and services required for the construction, operation and maintenance, as well as decommissioning, of nuclear power stations and fuel cycle infrastructure. The Government is aware of the important role that nuclear Research and Development (R&D) plays in the civil nuclear industry for the UK, helping to underpin the performance and safety cases of operational plants, inform government policy, develop innovative solutions and provide industry and regulators with a cadre of skilled people. The potential growth of the nuclear sector in the UK will not be driven by technology alone. A complex mix of Government policy, relative cost of nuclear power to other sources of energy, market decisions and public opinion will influence the rate and direction of growth in the decades to come. It is this level of complexity that obliges Government to keep a wide range of technological options open for the future and therefore to maintain an agile and flexible R&D capability. This Roadmap considers existing R&D programmes, the R&D infrastructure and landscape, likely R&D resources, international engagement and opportunities, and takes into account the work of others such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the Energy Research Partnership (ERP), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the Royal Society and the Technology Strategy Board (TSB). It accounts for synergies with other areas of energy research, particularly nuclear fusion, and ways in which greater benefit can be gained from these to maximise UK R&D capability and capacity. The Roadmap underpins the Strategy 3 and is supported by the UK Civil Nuclear R&D Landscape Review 4. 1 For clarity, throughout this document, fission and fusion are used in specific reference to one or other technology only, while nuclear is used in reference to both fission and fusion. 2 Climate Change Act HMG, Government Strategy for Civil Nuclear Power, HMG, A Review of the Civil Nuclear Landscape in the UK,

20 Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there? Figure 1: Relationship between Nuclear Energy Strategy ( Strategy ), Nuclear R&D Roadmap ( Roadmap ), and Nuclear R&D Landscape Review ( Review ) This document assesses the needs and opportunities for nuclear energy R&D in the UK in the context of new build of nuclear generation capacity to levels required in a range of scenarios that Government considers plausible. It sets out future R&D pathways that encompass the full range of technologies and capabilities considered capable of delivering a nuclear contribution to electricity generation capacity of up to 75 gigawatts (GW) by around the middle of the 21 st century. The upper level of 75 GW has been selected to align with the higher nuclear; lower energy efficiency scenario in the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) 2011 Carbon Plan 5. More information regarding the underpinning data (such as the long-term availability or otherwise of fissile materials for fuels) will be required to inform key decisions. The Roadmap considers which capabilities are required to enable this build, which technologies may be able to deliver these and the R&D skills, activities and facilities that would be required to allow the UK to deploy them. A series of focused R&D programmes are recommended to provide the means of addressing these needs and opportunities. 5 DECC, The Carbon Plan: Delivering our Low Carbon Future,

21 The Policy Background Historically, the UK s civil nuclear industry focused on offering a full nuclear fuel cycle service. Following the 2002 White Paper Managing the Nuclear Legacy: A Strategy for Action 6, the industry was reconfigured to focus on a decommissioning and cleanup mission, with geological disposal of higher activity wastes 7. New nuclear energy was neither ruled in or out in the 2003 Energy White Paper Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy 8, and was identified as a possible option in the 2008 Meeting the Energy Challenge - A White Paper on Nuclear Power 9. More recently, energy policy developments have been driving substantial changes to the UK s R&D landscape, particularly on issues related to greenhouse gas emissions and energy security. These policy developments further support the need for a robust portfolio of nuclear energy R&D programmes able to respond to developing requirements. This document considers the extent to which the UK s nuclear R&D capabilities can support the UK s future nuclear energy options on an enduring basis. The Role of Nuclear Energy in a Low Carbon Economy Nuclear energy is a key energy source in delivering the twin aims of energy security and a decarbonised UK economy. A strong and adaptable research base will support the delivery of these objectives and, through increased industrial activity, offers the ability to make a contribution to economic growth. The UK has a long history of deploying nuclear fission power generation and fuel cycle plant operations with a corresponding level of skills and experience in its 6 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), White Paper Managing the Nuclear Legacy - A Strategy for Action, Scottish Government policy differs from that of the UK Government, proposing near site, near surface disposal of wastes, together with storage of wastes which are unsuitable for disposal in that way. 8 DTI, Energy White Paper, Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), Meeting the Energy Challenge - A White Paper on Nuclear Power,

22 industrial, regulatory and research base. Apart from mining, this R&D experience has covered the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Nuclear energy generation capacity could continue to play a significant role in UK energy provision and may expand significantly by the mid-21st century. The UK has a 50 year history of nuclear fusion research. Both fission and fusion represent potential means of meeting future low carbon energy needs. The vision is for fusion to contribute to energy production after The primary focus of this document is therefore on nuclear fission R&D as the UK contribution to nuclear fusion research is described more fully elsewhere 10. Areas of research that are common to both fission and fusion are, however, identified. Roadmap Development The Roadmap has been developed under the oversight of the Ad-hoc Nuclear Research & Development Advisory Board (NRDAB) and draws on inputs from academic 11, industrial, regulatory and applied research organisations. Several subgroups reported to the NRDAB, each of which drew conclusions and made a number of recommendations relating to R&D. The recommendations of these sub-groups are presented in Annex A. These recommendations have been consolidated within this Roadmap, leading to a number of specific recommended actions and detailed R&D programmes. 10 A 20 Year Vision for the UK Contribution to Fusion as an Energy Source, Research Councils UK, February Significant input from the academic community was obtained at the UK Nuclear Academics Discussion Meeting at the University of Oxford (September 2012) 22

23 2. Nuclear Energy R&D Vision In three of the four scenarios described in the Carbon Plan, nuclear power is seen as delivering increased levels of electricity production. One scenario models 75 GW of nuclear power electricity generating capacity by the year 2050 and is equivalent to approximately seven times 12 the current level of installed nuclear power capacity. This is a substantial increase from current levels and options for achieving this may include: Development of advanced reactor designs (either thermal or fast reactors 13 ), including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs); Consideration of alternative fuels; and Consideration of alternative fuel cycles including options for closing the fuel cycle and reprocessing spent fuel. There is a risk that options, including the above, will not be evaluated in a timely manner, if left to the market. This document outlines R&D programmes which would ensure that these options are not foreclosed and that essential skills are not lost, thus mitigating the risk of market failure. The vision is that nuclear energy research and development programmes have the capability and capacity to support significant expansion of the nuclear energy sector. 12 DECC, Table of Past and Present UK Nuclear Reactors (Dec 2012). Website ( 13 See Annex B for definition of thermal and fast reactors. 23

24 3. Drivers Introduction The two high-level strategic drivers for the development of the objectives and programmes set out in the Roadmap are to: Establish R&D programmes to ensure that nuclear power is able to deliver the requirements for tackling climate change and maintaining energy security; and Ensure that nuclear R&D can make a positive contribution to delivery of the UK economic growth strategy. These two strategic drivers are discussed below (Figure 2) together with consideration of supporting tactical drivers which drive optimisation within individual nuclear energy R&D programme areas. Figure 2: Rationale for nuclear energy R&D Both energy and growth development strategies for nuclear energy R&D have an international dimension; in some programme areas the UK is either already internationally recognised as a key player, or there is a significant capability to achieve this level. National and international opportunities are explored in more detail in Section 7 (R&D programmes). Delivering the recommended R&D programmes will ensure that a range of options remains accessible, including technical solutions, which are more sustainable, have lower cost, and offer greater energy security. Successful delivery of the R&D 24

25 programmes set out in the Roadmap will also demonstrate internationally that the UK is adopting a leadership position on the low carbon economy and on non-proliferation of nuclear material. Conversely, failure to keep options open could limit the UK s ability to adopt advanced technologies, or delay the time at which the nuclear programme could be delivered. If nuclear technologies are to play an effective role in UK energy markets and industry, there is a need for a core UK nuclear R&D capability (facilities, technologies, skills and knowledge) that can engage fully with the market. Exercising this R&D capability will strengthen UK competence and ensure that UK companies can effectively take the role of intelligent customers, able to identify and select the most appropriate technologies needed and to deploy them in the most effective manner. UK domestic success supported by R&D could also be further used as a springboard for growth in export business, through development of new technologies and exporting products and expertise in a competitive global market (e.g. decommissioning). An effective R&D programme addresses both strategic drivers and delivers wider economic benefits to the UK, including the domestic nuclear supply chain. The Roadmap describes a national nuclear energy R&D programme addressing all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle without prematurely focusing attention in particular programme areas. Priority areas for action are identified within each of the individual programmes. Nuclear R&D to Support the UK Energy Strategy A number of pathways have been identified, including those in which nuclear fission would generate substantially more power than the current contribution. However, the need for a strategic UK R&D programme is not dependent on a subsequent decision to expand the scale of nuclear power generation. It is important that the UK continues to have access to the skills and facilities required to meet the existing challenges associated with operating current plant, extending the life of existing stations, waste management and decommissioning. The following programmes have concluded, or will conclude, in the period : The UK fast reactor programme concluded in the 1990 s; The Sellafield Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) plant closed in 2011; and The Magnox and Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) reprocessing programmes will both be concluded before R&D capability areas associated with these programmes will need to be maintained the UK wishes to maintain the option of realising the full range of potential energy strategies. 25

26 Nuclear R&D Contribution to UK Economic Growth Strategy The absolute minimum requirement for realising ambitious future pathways is that the UK is able to take the role of an intelligent buyer, and to deliver effective and independent regulation of an expanded nuclear power sector. Many of the potential programmes for increased nuclear power generation are only likely to be achievable through collaboration with international R&D programmes. The opportunity therefore exists to make a significant contribution to the UK economic growth strategy if the UK takes an active role in applying nuclear fission skills and expertise within international collaborations and takes a leading role in specific areas, especially as a technology developer and exploiter. In order to do so, it may be necessary to identify one or more areas of science and technology relevant to nuclear fission in which the UK could take a leading role. One of the means by which a leading role can be established is by volunteering to host facilities for the demonstration of aspects of technology required in the fuel cycle. This has the advantage of creating new jobs, which support the operation of the facility as well as meeting the high technology requirements of the researchers. For example, the Daresbury synchrotron 14 was a hub around which a number of associated high technology companies set up, offering related technologies such as high vacuum technologies. Some of these then spun out diversified businesses such as development and manufacture of mass-spectroscopy equipment. Tactical Drivers Within the overall context of providing energy security and de-carbonising the UK economy, many factors influence the optimisation of nuclear energy R&D, including the need to: Technical and Safety Develop cleaner' pathways, minimising the quantity of radioactive waste generated and the technical challenge posed to geological disposal; Make optimum use of available nuclear materials (efficient use of fuel resources); Deliver lifetime extensions to existing reactors and factor in the learning to future reactors; Consider technical and safety factors holistically across the whole fuel cycle; Evaluate passive safety and accident-resistant designs; and Improve non-proliferation features. 14 For details, refer to Sci-Tech Daresbury at Science and Technologies Facilities Council website: 26

27 Economic Evaluate the cost of different options; Understand the trade-off between cost and sustainability and social factors (which value prompt action); Understand the impact of considering discounted cost (which can favour delay); Evaluate the economic downside risks of allowing options to close; Develop pathways which increase confidence in (cap)ability to deliver; Diversify the marketplace, particularly low capital cost and/or operating cost offerings; and Evaluate a wider choice of thermal and electrical power options, including improved load following 15. Social Understand public perceptions of nuclear energy technology development, and factors which inform public acceptability; and Understand public engagement processes on nuclear R&D, and their effectiveness. Timing Develop a clear view of which options should be kept open and which should be closed off, and when. 15 Adjusting power output as demand for electricity fluctuates. 27

28 4. Nuclear Energy R&D Pathways A range of possible nuclear energy R&D pathways is postulated. The highest dependency on nuclear energy would require an increase in nuclear generating capacity (further to the current plans for 16 GW of new nuclear build capacity by 2025) of up to 75 GW by the middle of the 21 st century, spanning the range of plausible scenarios for nuclear and other electricity generation technologies set out in the Government s 2011 Carbon Plan. A wide range of technical solutions could deliver such an output. These vary from the construction of a large number of Light Water Reactors (LWRs) operating an open fuel cycle, through to a mix of LWR and fast reactors designed to maximise the utilisation of nuclear materials (and hence minimises the demand for fresh nuclear material). Innovative concepts, such as SMRs, may also find a role in a future nuclear energy programme (refer to Annexes B, C and D for details of reactor, fuel and fuel cycle technologies). This document sets out the R&D that would need to be carried out to ensure that the UK could select from these different technologies to deliver the required outcome. At a high level, there are three high level R&D pathways: An R&D baseline without new nuclear build and with the completion of current fuel recycling operations; R&D to support GW on an open fuel cycle basis (uranium and plutonium fuels); and R&D to support GW on the basis of a transition from an open to a future closed fuel cycle (uranium and plutonium fuels). There are significant R&D challenges associated with all three pathways considered in the Roadmap. The salient characteristics of the pathways are as follows: Baseline Pathway The Baseline Pathway involves operating the existing reactor fleet for the remainder of its life, the justification of lifetime extensions (where appropriate), the decommissioning and clean-up of all of the civil nuclear licensed sites in the UK and the implementation of geological disposal of higher activity radioactive wastes. A significant programme of R&D will be required to deliver this pathway. The accountabilities for completing the decommissioning, clean-up and geological disposal programmes are already clear, but the associated research programmes will be challenging to complete. The Baseline Pathway represents the current status quo, and excludes delivery of the current plans for 16 GW of new nuclear build capacity by

29 The delivery of the current fusion R&D programme is present in the Baseline Pathway. Open Fuel Cycle Pathway An open fuel cycle is one in which fuel is fabricated, loaded into a reactor to generate power and subsequently stored, possibly for many decades, pending geological disposal. A proportion of the fissile material remains in the spent fuel at the point of discharge from the reactor. An open fuel cycle has a relatively high demand for fresh supplies of fissile material. This pathway includes delivery of the current plans for 16 GW of new nuclear build capacity by In practice the bounding case for this pathway involves the construction of a series of reactor units with a combined installed capacity of up to 75 GW by the middle of the 21 st century. This pathway includes the elements of the Baseline Pathway. (Transition to) Closed Fuel Cycle Pathway In a closed fuel cycle the spent nuclear fuel is treated to recover and recycle fissile material to generate further power. In some fuel cycles, options also exist to incorporate some of the long lived actinides into fuel, thus reducing the disposal challenge. Closing the fuel cycle beyond the middle of the 21 st century reduces the requirement for fresh fissile material. The transition to a closed fuel cycle would not be immediate and would need to be phased in accordance with the development of advanced technologies e.g. fast reactors and advanced reprocessing methods. This pathway includes delivery of the current plans for 16 GW of new nuclear build capacity on an open fuel cycle basis by In practice the bounding case for this pathway involves the construction of a series of reactor units with a combined installed capacity of up to 75 GW by the middle of the 21 st century. This pathway includes the elements of the Baseline Pathway. Other Fuel Cycles: Thorium Most of the world s nuclear power reactors run on uranium fuel, are cooled by water and, in order to sustain the heat-giving nuclear reaction in the reactor core, must slow down the neutrons emitted by the fuel. However, there are a range of reactor designs in various stages of development which differ from these and which may offer advantages over currently available reactor systems. Some of these also offer the possibility of using thorium, rather than uranium, as a fuel, which may offer desirable characteristics. 29

30 Thorium is a fertile 16 material that is used to breed uranium fuel in reactors. This fuel cycle requires a fissile 17 fuel (e.g. uranium or plutonium) seed in order to start up reactor operations. Thorium reactors are, therefore, expected to be subject to the same fuelling limitations in roll-out as fast reactors, in which the rate of commissioning is constrained by the rate of production of start-up fuel from the existing reactor fleet. Thorium-fuelled variations of current reactor designs, as well as novel thorium-fuelled reactors, may allow different fuel breeding ratios from their uranium-fuelled counterparts. Assessing thorium-fuelled reactors and understanding the implications for the attainable rates of expansion of nuclear capacity will be important for understanding the potential role of thorium in a UK fuel cycle. Thorium fuels are also likely to differ from uranium fuels in their waste characteristics, including their radiological properties and the amounts of heat they generate. These waste characteristics will vary with the type of reactor in which thorium fuels are used and individual systems may offer significant advantages or barriers to the waste's management and final disposal. Again, further analysis and fuel cycle modelling will be necessary to understand the implications on waste management and disposal of using thorium fuels. 16 Fertile Material - Nuclear material that can be converted to fissile material through the capture of a neutron. An example of a fertile material is uranium Fissile Material - Fissile materials are capable of undergoing nuclear fission (splitting of the nucleus of an atom) by slow neutrons. Examples of fissile materials are uranium-235 and plutonium

31 5. Fuel Cycle Modelling ORION is a fuel cycle simulation code able to simulate a wide range of nuclear related facilities (storage buffers, fabrication and enrichment plants, reprocessing facilities, waste conditioning plants and reactors) that can be linked together to allow different fuel cycle scenarios to be investigated. ORION has been used in the development of this document to analyse a number of scenarios incorporating different fuels, reactor technologies and recycling/reprocessing options, to explore the range of potential UK open and closed fuel cycles. ORION models and tracks the transfer of material with time throughout the different stages of the fuel cycle, starting from a mine through to final disposal in a geological disposal facility. ORION tracks the demand for raw materials and reflects the availability with time of materials such as spent fuel, separated plutonium and uranium. The code manages the availability of materials and, for reactors, will automatically vary the amounts of each fuel type loaded depending on the feedstock available. During each stage of the fuel cycle, decay and transmutation of the material is modelled, as well as other chemical and physical changes such as uranium enrichment, reprocessing and partitioning. Results from ORION include the activity of each nuclide being transferred between different components (facilities) of the fuel cycle and the activity of each nuclide within storage buffers. Other measures, including radiotoxicity, decay heat and spontaneous neutron emission, can also be calculated from the nuclide inventories and used to identify modifications to fuel-cycle operation. Some results on economics and proliferation risk measures can also be determined. Since the simulations defined in ORION are time-dependent (i.e. systems can evolve over time), timeevolution profiles of the different model outputs are determined. Examples of information that can be provided from simulations using ORION include: The variation in time of the amount of electricity generated; The variation in time of the quantities of nuclear materials (e.g. plutonium, uranium tails 18 ) available and/or required to fuel different reactor fleets (e.g. for use in fast reactors); Uranium ore requirements for different fuel cycle scenarios; Decay heat of wastes sent to a geological repository; and Volumes and nuclide activity of solid, liquid and gaseous discharges; Volumes of wastes requiring disposal (in the categories of Low Level Waste (LLW), Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) and High Level Waste (HLW)) and spent fuel. 18 By-product of the uranium enrichment process. 31

32 These measures enable the impact of a fuel cycle to be estimated in terms of the implications for fuel fabrication and handling, the reprocessing of spent fuel, the suitability of separated plutonium for recycling, waste management requirements, and final disposal in a repository. For example, the amount of plutonium required to fuel a fast reactor fleet has implications for the timing and magnitude of spent fuel reprocessing to generate nuclear materials, whilst the size of a geological disposal facility for heat-generating wastes is dependent on decay heat production from the wastes. ORION has been used to model several potential future UK nuclear fuel cycle scenarios. These scenarios simulate the Magnox and Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) fleets, the fabrication and enrichment of uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) fuel for the Sizewell B reactor and a future LWR (Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) modelled) reactor fleet, as well as the continual recycling of neptunium, plutonium and americium through a fast reactor fleet. Spent UO 2, Enriched Reprocessed Uranium (ERU) and MOX fuel from the LWR fleets and spent MOX fuel from the fast reactor fleet are cooled before being reprocessed. The separated plutonium and uranium are used to fabricate MOX and ERU fuel for the LWR and fast reactor fleets, and the fission product and un-recycled minor actinide inventory immobilised, stored, cooled and eventually consigned for geological disposal. The scenarios analysed using ORION fall into two main categories: open and closed fuel cycles. Open Fuel Cycles A range of open fuel cycle scenarios can be envisaged. The main variables are the number and type of reactors that are built. The scenarios modelled include power outputs from 16 GW (about the level envisaged in the current plans for a new generation of nuclear power reactors) to 75 GW. All of these scenarios assume the construction of LWR reactors. Closed Fuel Cycles A wider range of closed fuel cycles is possible, when compared to the open fuel cycle. More variables need to be considered in developing a closed fuel cycle. Some of the main variables are: The extent to which nuclear material is recycled into fuel. The reprocessing currently carried out in the UK extracts uranium and plutonium from irradiated fuel. These are separated from each other and either uranium, plutonium, or both, can be recycled into fuel. It is also possible to recycle minor actinides such as americium and neptunium into fuel, which has the effect of reducing the radiological hazard of waste requiring disposal. The type of reactor. The current generation of reactors operating in the UK are all thermal reactors. However a number of fast reactor concepts have been 32

33 developed which permit a much higher degree of recycling and can, if operated to do so, generate additional fissile material, thus enabling much more energy to be generated from the same raw material. The number of reactors. A range of closed fuel cycles has been modelled which vary from 16 GW of thermal reactors burning MOX fuel to a 75 GW bounding case including both thermal and fast reactors and in which uranium, plutonium, americium and neptunium are recycled in fast reactors. The closed fuel cycle scenarios that have been modelled include scenarios in which uranium and plutonium are recycled in LWR thermal reactors, as well as scenarios in which a mixture of LWR thermal reactors and fast reactors are constructed. Comparison of Open and Closed Fuel Cycles In comparing the output from modelling of a range of fuel cycles, a number of observations can be made. Figure 3: Comparison of heat output from two generations of reactors delivering 75 GW of power on open and closed fuel cycles 33

34 Figure 3 illustrates that the cumulative decay heat output from the spent fuel and HLW, from two generations of reactors (LWR only, or LWR and Fast Reactors (FR)) operating under a closed fuel cycle (each generating 75 GW), will be approximately 30% less than the same output from an open fuel cycle. Figure 4 plots the uranium ore required to fuel the same two generations of reactors (75 GW open and closed scenarios). The ore demand for the closed fuel cycle, which includes fast reactors, is substantially lower than that for LWRs operating in an open fuel cycle. However, since a closed fuel cycle requires separated plutonium initially, a future fast reactor fleet has to be preceded by a similar sized LWR fleet and the reprocessing of the LWR spent fuel. Therefore, the ore demand from 2020 to 2100 is dominated by the fuel required for the LWR fleet. The ore requirement for the period from 2100 to 2220 is reduced as the fast reactors are fuelled by recycled nuclear material and breed all future fissile material during operation. Figure 4: Comparison of uranium ore required to power two generations of reactors delivering 75 GW of power on open and closed fuel cycles The 75 GW closed fuel cycle scenario models two generations of reactors, each generating 75 GW and operating for 60 years. Figure 5 shows the level of power generated over time and the type of reactors contributing to that power. The fuel from the LWRs is recycled to produce fuel for fast reactors. In this scenario, the second generation of reactors contains only fast reactors. 34

35 Figure 5: The source of power generated against time for a 75 GW closed fuel cycle 19 General Observations In the absence of spent fuel reuse or recycling, the quantity of spent fuel requiring disposal in a geological disposal facility (i.e. GDF) would increase with the increased number of reactor cores. The spent fuel may need to be stored for many decades prior to disposal. One of the factors constraining geological disposal of spent fuel is the rate of heat generation. Current geological disposal concepts require heat generating wastes to be distributed in a manner that limits the temperature rise in the surrounding rock. An increased scale of a new build programme will increase the total heat output of fuel for disposal and (unless the fuel is processed further) increase the footprint of the GDF. An open fuel cycle operating thermal reactors requires increased levels of uranium ore to be made available for fuel fabrication when compared to the same size of 19 The fuel cycle modelling has assumed new reactor build contributions from (i) The UK European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) design developed by AREVA and Electricité de France (EDF) and (ii) The AP1000 design developed by Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC). 35

36 power generating programme operating a fuel cycle in which plutonium and uranium are recycled as MOX fuel. Therefore, for any given power output the recycling of plutonium reduces the requirement for fresh uranium ore supplies. The current stock of separated plutonium would not be sufficient to sustain a 75 GW fleet of fast reactors. Any plan to build a fleet of fast reactors of this scale (fuelled by uranium and plutonium) would need to incorporate a means of generating the plutonium required (e.g. via a fleet of thermal reactors and a spent fuel recycling facility). In this scenario, a future fast reactor fleet would be limited by the size of a preceding uranium-oxide-fuelled thermal reactor fleet. Using the existing stock of plutonium to manufacture MOX fuel for LWR reactors would reduce the quantity and quality of plutonium available to fuel a fast reactor fleet, even if the LWR fuel is recycled. Observations on a 75 GW Nuclear Programme The ORION scenarios both assume that nuclear power in the UK expands to a total installed capacity of 75 GW by the year This corresponds to the most ambitious scenario identified in the Carbon Plan and represents very substantial growth to approximately seven times the current level of installed nuclear power capacity. Construction of more than 50 new reactors would be required (assuming units of approximately 1 GW capacity). In order to achieve this, new reactor sites may have to be identified and licensed, or existing sites extended, and new reactors would have to be completed at a rate of around 3 units per year similar to historic peak levels of new build in France. 36

37 6. Pathway Timelines Illustrative timelines and their significant milestones have been developed for each pathway up to 2050, in order to highlight where nuclear R&D could be key to the credibility of the pathways and their associated activities. The timelines have been prepared using existing UK decommissioning and waste management strategies, the ERP Roadmap 20 and pathway analysis undertaken for this Roadmap. Additionally, an international example of national steps taken to achieve a nuclear fuel cycle outcome is presented: the French programme for developing a prototype fast reactor. Reading the Timelines Pathway activities are shown as coloured bars, segmented where appropriate to show supporting steps, e.g. design, build, operation. M denotes a milestone or stage gate relevant to the success of a pathway denotes a decision relevant to the success of a pathway (ASTRID Timeline) denotes a time point at which public acceptability is significant to the success of a pathway denotes a technology insertion point (ASTRID Timeline) denotes an outcome relevant to the pathway Pathway-related R&D programmes are shown as coloured bars and linked to specific M or points on the timeline. Details of these programmes can be found in the following section. 20 Energy Research Partnership, UK Nuclear Fission Technology Roadmap: Preliminary Report, February

38 Outline Timeline for ASTRID Deployment The French Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration (ASTRID) programme began in 2010 and the course is set for a target date of 2023 for the prototype fast reactor to commence operations, with a final decision to give the go-ahead for construction expected in Notable aspects of this include: It is anticipated that the operation of ASTRID and European and international collaboration would lead to the deployment of a commercial sodium-cooled fast reactor by The timeline presented in Figure 6 includes the associated fuel cycle development activities in support of ASTRID (i.e. fuel fabrication and fuel recycling). The French continue to research and develop gas-cooled fast reactor technology via the ESNII collaborative ALLEGRO project. Illustrative Timeline for Baseline Pathway The timeline for the Baseline Pathway (Figure 7 & Figure 8) illustrates indicative timings for delivery of the UK GDF and decommissioning and clean-up activities up to It also shows potential immobilisation activities for UK plutonium and uranium stocks. Notable aspects of this include: The timeline assumes that lifetime extensions are granted for the AGR fleet and Sizewell B leading to the end of nuclear fission power generation by Nuclear fusion energy development and demonstration activities are mapped out up to 2050, but it is not yet certain at which point industrial deployment could be expected. R&D in relevant areas has been linked to key stages in the Baseline Pathway. Illustrative Timeline for Open Fuel Cycle (75 GW) Pathway The timeline for the Open Fuel Cycle Pathway (Figure 9 & Figure 10) illustrates the anticipated timings for activities associated with the delivery of 75 GW of nuclear fission energy by It includes the assumption that UK plutonium would be used within the new LWR fleet and that advanced thermal reactor technology, in this case small modular reactors (SMRs) would be assessed for assisting with a mission for 75 GW by the middle of the 21 st century. Notable aspects of this include: Recognising the greatly increased demands on a GDF from a 75 GW programme, repetition of the volunteer community led process for site selection has been assumed. GDF, decommissioning and clean-up activities are part of the pathway but have not been included on the timeline to minimise complexity of the image. R&D in relevant areas has been linked to key stages in the Open Fuel Cycle Pathway. 38

39 Illustrative Timeline for Transition from Open to Closed Fuel Cycle (75 GW) Pathway The timeline for the transition from Open to Closed Fuel Cycle Pathway (Figure 11 & Figure 12) illustrates the anticipated timings for activities associated with the delivery of 75 GW of nuclear fission energy by It includes the key assumption that the UK would be actively involved in international advanced fuel cycle initiatives and have access to international technology demonstrators, with an option of hosting demonstrators in the UK. Notable aspects of this include: GDF, decommissioning and clean-up activities are part of the pathway but have not been included on the timeline to minimise complexity of the image. R&D in relevant areas has been linked to key stages in the transition from Open to Closed Fuel Cycle Pathway. 39

40 KEY TO FIGURE 7: AFC ASTRID ECRTD ESNII EU FTE FR MA MW MOX SFR ASTRID Core Fabrication Workshop Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration European Commission Research and Technological Development European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative European Union Full Time Equivalent Fast Reactor Minor Actinide Megawatt Mixed Oxide Fuel Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor Figure 6: Illustrative timeline for ASTRID deployment in France 40

41 KEY TO FIGURES 7 AND 8: AGR GDF HLW ILW ITER Pu PWR RU SF SMP U Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Geological Disposal Facility High Level Waste Intermediate Level Waste International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project Plutonium Pressurised Water Reactor Reprocessed Uranium Spent Fuel Sellafield MOX Plant Uranium M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 P1 Note Continuation of funding of Fusion R&D at end of current EPSRC funding Select technology for Pu immobilisation Decision on immobilisation of civil separated Pu stocks Select technology for U immobilisation Decision on immobilisation of separated U, tails HAW packaging concepts confirmed Update of UK Fusion Energy Vision Host community acceptance or otherwise of geological disposal Indicative timelines are shown in those cases where decisions are taken to immobilise U and Pu, and to proceed with geological disposal programme beyond Stages 1-4 Figure 7: Illustrative timeline for baseline pathway 41

42 KEY TO FIGURES 7 AND 8: AGR GDF HLW ILW ITER Pu PWR RU SF SMP U Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Geological Disposal Facility High Level Waste Intermediate Level Waste International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project Plutonium Pressurised Water Reactor Reprocessed Uranium Spent Fuel Sellafield MOX Plant Uranium M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 P1 Note Continuation of funding of Fusion R&D at end of current EPSRC funding Select technology for Pu immobilisation Decision on immobilisation of civil separated Pu stocks Select technology for U immobilisation Decision on immobilisation of separated U, tails HAW packaging concepts confirmed Update of UK Fusion Energy Vision Host community acceptance or otherwise of geological disposal Indicative timelines are shown in those cases where decisions are taken to immobilise U and Pu, and to proceed with geological disposal programme beyond Stages 1-4 Figure 8: Illustrative timeline of research areas for baseline pathway 42

43 KEY TO FIGURES 9 AND 10: AGR GDF GW LTA LWR MOX UOX M1 M2 M3 M4 P1 P2 Note Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Geological Disposal Facility Gigawatt Lead Test Assembly Light Water Reactor Mixed Oxide Fuel Uranium OXide Proceed with second phase of LWR fleet Revision to scope of GDF in light of second phase of LWR fleet Decision on re-use of Pu in LWR MOX Decision on expand UOX fabrication facilities in light of second phase of LWR fleet Host community acceptance or otherwise of geological disposal of spent fuel for a 75 GW open fuel cycle programme Additional sites/further site expansion Indicative timelines are shown in cases where decisions are taken on second phase of LWR fleet, Pu re-use, UOX facilities expansion and host community acceptance or otherwise of geological disposal of irradiated fuel Figure 9: Illustrative timeline for open fuel cycle pathway 43

44 KEY TO FIGURES 9 AND 10: AGR GDF GW LTA LWR MOX UOX M1 M2 M3 M4 P1 P2 Note Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor Geological Disposal Facility Gigawatt Lead Test Assembly Light Water Reactor Mixed Oxide Fuel Uranium OXide Proceed with second phase of LWR fleet Revision to scope of GDF in light of second phase of LWR fleet Decision on re-use of Pu in LWR MOX Decision on expand UOX fabrication facilities in light of second phase of LWR fleet Host community acceptance or otherwise of geological disposal of spent fuel for a 75 GW open fuel cycle programme Additional sites/further site expansion Indicative timelines are shown in cases where decisions are taken on second phase of LWR fleet, Pu re-use, UOX facilities expansion and host community acceptance or otherwise of geological disposal of irradiated fuel Figure 10: Illustrative timeline of research areas for open fuel cycle pathway 44

45 KEY TO FIGURES 11 AND 12: AGR EC FR LTA LWR Pu SF M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 P1 Note Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor European Commission Fast Reactor Lead Test Assembly Light Water Reactor Plutonium Spent Fuel Commit to EC Horizon 2020 for leverage Develop commercial FR through international demonstrator project participation Proceed with second phase of LWR build Proceed with design of UK commercial FR Proceed with design of UK recycle plant Decision on possible retention of Pu (and potentially RU) for re-use in FR Recycle of AGR and LWR spent fuel into FR Additional sites/further site expansion agreed Indicative timelines are shown in cases where decisions are taken on second phase of LWR fleet, development of FR and fuel recycle Figure 11: Illustrative timeline for transition from open to closed fuel cycle pathway 45

46 KEY TO FIGURES 11 AND 12: AGR EC FR LTA LWR Pu SF M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 P1 Note Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor European Commission Fast Reactor Lead Test Assembly Light Water Reactor Plutonium Spent Fuel Commit to EC Horizon 2020 for leverage Develop commercial FR through international demonstrator project participation Proceed with second phase of LWR build Proceed with design of UK commercial FR Proceed with design of UK recycle plant Decision on possible retention of Pu (and potentially RU) for re-use in FR Recycle of AGR and LWR spent fuel into FR Additional sites/further site expansion agreed Indicative timelines are shown in cases where decisions are taken on second phase of LWR fleet, development of FR and fuel recycle Figure 12: Illustrative timeline of research areas for transition from open to closed fuel cycle pathway 46

47 7. R&D Programmes Introduction Current research programmes are being carried out under a clear set of accountabilities, including support to operating reactors and the delivery of lifetime extensions (EdF Energy), clean-up of civil nuclear sites (NDA), the implementation of geological disposal (NDA Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD)), and regulator-led programmes (Office for Nuclear Regulation, Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency). There is currently no long-term research programme in place to support the development of an increased contribution from nuclear fission to UK power generation. A structured R&D programme will need to be developed and implemented if the UK wishes to retain the option to expand the contribution of nuclear fission to deliver a low carbon source of energy. A long-term national R&D programme will need to build on existing research programmes, as illustrated in Figure 13. A small number of issues (interface issues) will be of interest to both programmes requiring some dialogue and exchange of information. One such example may be the issue of plutonium disposition. Government s preferred policy is that the vast majority of the existing stockpile of separated plutonium should be reused as MOX. The NDA is currently exploring the means of implementing this policy. Under the closed fuel cycle pathway, involving the construction of fast reactors, this material could be deployed as fuel for the fast reactor fleet. Figure 13: Existing and future R&D programmes and accountabilities 47

48 The additional, enabling R&D programme would need to address the issues associated with a range of possible pathways and would need to include the following activities: Identifying priority R&D needs across programme areas; Developing an integrated R&D programme, from research through development to deployment to meet those needs; Generating subject matter experts; Supporting the nuclear R&D skills pipeline; Ensuring that the appropriate data is generated at the right time to inform energy strategy and policy decisions; Establishing mechanisms to ensure effective communication and sharing of learning between programme areas; Identifying and acting upon the synergies that exist between different programme areas, to accelerate technology development; Establishing a mechanism which enables UK nuclear businesses to realise growth opportunities in overseas markets by acting with one voice as UK nuclear ; Aligning the nuclear R&D community to meet the needs of the full range of potential future programmes; and Establishing a mechanism that ensures the nuclear manufacturing businesses have programmes of activities, in terms of facilities, equipment, skills and capabilities, to deliver the nuclear energy R&D strategies in a cost effective manner that enables growth, both in the UK and globally. This document identifies the R&D that would be needed to realise a baseline R&D programme and additionally considers the implications of a significant expansion (up to 75 GW installed capacity) in nuclear power generation. If a decision is made to expand significantly, further decisions will be required to select an appropriate fuel cycle and reactor design or designs from the wide range of options that currently exist. These include fuel cycles based on uranium, thorium and combinations of fissile materials, construction of large reactors only, or a mixture of large reactors with SMRs, and the use of only thermal reactors or a combination of thermal and fast reactors. The R&D identified would provide information that informs these decisions, and should include programme elements to support these decisions. No options are ruled out at this stage. 48

49 National R&D Programme There is currently no national integration of nuclear energy R&D in the UK. A number of organisations sponsor R&D to address particular nuclear issues, mostly focused on short to medium term issues, and a larger number of organisations perform R&D, including academia, national laboratories and industry. A list of organisations coordinating aspects of nuclear energy R&D is included in Annex E. The fragmented nature of programmes means that the UK nuclear R&D community is not currently optimised to undertake a national programme of the scale or ambition required to deliver the future nuclear energy pathways, particularly those predicated on large future nuclear build. Coordination of, and interchange between, programme elements could greatly enhance R&D output and economic impact, and strengthen the UK offering internationally (see Figure 14). A high-level description of the nine R&D programme areas is shown in Table 1. Figure 14: Present and future coordination of nuclear R&D There is a need to develop an integrated R&D programme to support the life extension of the existing reactor fleet, and the supply chain needs in delivering the new build programme, in addition to delivering the decommissioning and clean-up and geological disposal R&D programmes. 49